Sustainable Engineering Science for Resolving Wicked Problems

Articles

Abstract

Because wicked problems are beyond the scope of normal, industrial-age engineering science, sustainability problems will require reform of current engineering science and technology practices. We assert that, while pluralism concerning use of the term sustainability is likely to persist, universities should continue to cultivate research and education programs specifically devoted to sustainable engineering science, an enterprise that is formally demarcated from business-as-usual and systems optimization approaches. Advancing sustainable engineering science requires a shift in orientation away from reductionism and intellectual specialization towards integrative approaches to science, education, and technology that: (1) draw upon an ethical awareness that extends beyond the usual bounds of professional ethics or responsible conduct of research to include macroethics, (2) adopt anticipatory and adaptive approaches to unintended consequences resulting from technological innovation that result in more resilient systems, and (3) cultivate interactional expertise to facilitate cross-disciplinary exchange. Unfortunately, existing education and research training programs are ill-equipped to prepare scientists and engineers to operate effectively in a wicked problems milieu. Therefore, it is essential to create new programs of graduate education that will train scientists and engineers to become sustainable engineering science experts equipped to recognize and grapple with the macro-ethical, adaptive, and cross-disciplinary challenges embedded in their technical research and development programs.

Keywords

Sustainability Sustainability ethics Wicked problems Interactional expertise Resilience Macro ethics 

References

  1. Allenby, B. (2006). Macroethical systems and sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 1, 7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayres, R. U. (1998). The price-value paradox. Ecological Economics, 25, 17–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayres, R. U., van den Bergh, J. C. J. M., & Gowdy, J. M. (2001). Strong versus weak sustainability: Economics, natural sciences, and “consilience.” Environmental Ethics, 23, 155–68.Google Scholar
  4. Berardy, A., Seager, T. P., & Selinger, E. (2011). Developing a pedagogy of interactional expertise for sustainability education. Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology, Chicago, IL, 16–18 May 2011.Google Scholar
  5. Borgman, A. (1984). Technology and the character of contemporary life: A philosophical inquiry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bossel, H. (2000). Policy assessment and simulation of actor orientation for sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 34, 337–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brundiers, K., & Wiek, A. (2010). Educating students in real-world sustainability research: Vision and implementation. Innovative Higher Education, 36(2), 107–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brundtland, G. H., & Khalid, M. (1987). Our common future. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Chappell, L., & Truett, R. (2009). Slump shows who’s flexible, who’s not; Japanese manufacturers can soften the economic blows with their ability to add and subtract models in days rather than months. Now the Detroit 3 are primed to do the same. Automotive News, 83(6362), 13.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, W. C. (2007). Sustainability science: A room of its own. PNAS, 104, 1737–1738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark, W. C., & Dickson, N. M. (2003). Sustainability science: The emerging research program. PNAS, 100(14), 8059–8061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collins, H. (2010). Tacit and explicit knowledge. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2007). Rethinking expertise. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Collins, H., Evans, R., & Gorman, M. (2007). Trading zones and interactional expertise. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 38(4), 657–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Connolly, S. (2007). Mapping sustainable development as an essentially contested concept. Local Environment, 12(3), 259–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Daly, H. E. (1997). Beyond growth: The economics of sustainable development. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  17. Davison, A. (2001). Technology and the contested meanings of sustainability. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  18. Dovers, S. (1996). Sustainability: Demands on policy. Journal of Public Policy, 16, 303–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fiksel, J. (2006). Sustainability and resilience: Toward a systems approach. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 2(2), 14–21.Google Scholar
  20. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gallie, W. B. (1956). Essentially Contested Concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56, 167–198.Google Scholar
  22. Gorman, M. (2002). Levels of expertise and trading zones: A framework for multidisciplinary collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 32(5), 933–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gunderson, L., & Light, S. S. (2006). Adaptive management and adaptive governance in the everglades ecosystem. Policy Sciences, 39(4), 323–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guston, D. H. (2008). Innovation policy: Not just a jumbo shrimp. Nature, 454, 940–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Healy, M. L., Dahlben, L. J., & Isaacs, J. A. (2008). Environmental assessment of single-walled carbon nanotube processes. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 12(3), 376–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holling, C. S. (1996). Engineering resilience vs. ecological resilience. In P. C. Schulze (Ed.), Engineering within ecological constraints. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  27. Iijima, S. (1991). Helical microtubules of graphitic carbon. Nature, 354, 56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kates, R. W., Clark, W. C., Corell, R., Hall, J. M., Jaeger, C. C., Lowe, I., et al. (2001). Sustainability science. Science, 292(5517), 641–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Keefe, R., Griffin, J. P., & Graham, J. D. (2008). The benefits and costs of new fuels and engines for light-duty vehicles in the United States. Risk Analysis, 28(5), 1141–1154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Komiyama, H., & Takeuchi, K. (2006). Sustainability science: Building a new discipline. Sustainability Science, 1, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Korhonen, J., & Seager, T. P. (2008). Beyond eco-efficiency: A resilience perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(7), 411–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lovelock, J. E. (1971). Atmospheric fluorine compounds as indicators of air movements. Nature, 230, 379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lovelock, J. E., Maggs, R. J., & Wade, R. J. (1973). Halogenated hydrocarbons in and over the Atlantic. Nature, 241, 194–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Michelcic, J. R., Crittenden, J. C., Small, M. J., Shonnard, D. R., Hokanson, D. R., Zhang, Q., et al. (2003). Sustainability science and engineering: The emergence of a new metadiscipline. Environmental Science and Technology, 37, 5314–5324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mitcham, C. (1989). In search of a new relation between science, technology, and society. Technology in Society, 11, 409–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mu, D., Seager, T. P., Rao, P. S. C., Park, J., & Zhao, F. (2011). A resilience perspective on biofuels production. Integrated Environmental Assessment & Management, 7(3), 348–359.Google Scholar
  37. Mulder, K. F., Segalas-Coral, J., & Ferrer-Balas, D. (2010). Educating engineers for/in sustainable development? What we knew, what we learned, and what we should learn. Thermal Science, 14(3), 625–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Norton, B. G. (2005). Sustainability: A philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. NRC. (2009). Science and decisions: Advancing risk assessment, committee on improving risk analysis approaches used by the U.S. EPA. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  40. Oberdörster, G., Oberdörster, E., & Oberdörster, J. (2005). Nanotoxicology: An emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(7), 823–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oberdörster, G., Stone, V., & Donaldson, K. (2007). Toxicology of nanoparticles: A historical perspective. Nanotoxicology, 1(1), 2–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Park, J., Seager, T. P., & Rao, P. S. C. (2011). Lessons in risk- versus resilience-based design and management. Integrated Environmental Assessment & Management, 7(3), 396–399.Google Scholar
  43. Raffaelle, R., Robison, W., & Selinger, E. (2010). 5 Questions: Sustainability ethics. USA: Automatic/VIP Press.Google Scholar
  44. Rittell, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rowland, F. S., & Molina, M. J. (1975). Chlorofluoromethanes in the environment. Reviews of Geophysics, 13(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sarewitz, D., & Nelson, R. (2008). Three rules for technological fixes. Nature, 456, 871–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Seager, T. P. (2008). The sustainability spectrum and the sciences of sustainability. Business Strategy and Environment, 17(7), 444–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Seager, T. P., & Selinger., E. (2009). Experiential teaching strategies for developing ethical reasoning skills relevant to sustainability. Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology. Phoenix AZ, 18–22 May 2009. Available online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?tp=andarnumber=5156721andisnumber=5156678.
  49. Seager, T. P., & Theis, T. L. (2003). A thermodynamic basis for evaluating environmental policy trade-offs. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 4, 217–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Seager, T. P., & Theis, T. L. (2004). A taxonomy of metrics for testing the industrial ecology hypotheses and application to design of freezer insulation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12, 865–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sheffi, Y. (2007). The resilient enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Simon, J. L. (1996). The ultimate resource 2. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ Press.Google Scholar
  53. Solow, R. (1993). Sustainability: An Economists perspective. In R. Dorfman & N. S. Dorfman (Eds.), Economics and the environment: Selected readings. New York, NY: Norton.Google Scholar
  54. Sparrevik, M., Saloranta, T., Cornelissen, G., Eek, E., Fet, A. M., Breedveld, G. D., et al. (2011). Use of life cycle assessments to evaluate the environmental footprint of contaminated sediment remediation. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(10), 4235–4241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Talwar, S., Wiek, A., & Robinson, J. (2011). User engagement in sustainability research. Science and Public Policy, 38(5), 379–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Theis, T. L., Bakshi, B., Clift, R., Durham, D., Fthenakis, V., Gutowski, T., Isaacs, J., Seager T. P., Wiesner, M. R. (2011). A life cycle framework for the investigation of environmentally benign nanoparticles and products. Physica Status Solidi Rapid Research Letters. doi:10.1002/pssr.201105083
  57. Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., Redman, C. L., & Banas Mills, S. (2011). Moving forward on competence in sustainability research and problem-solving. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 53(2), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wiek, A., Zemp, S., Siegrist, M., & Walter, A. (2007). Sustainable governance of emerging technologies—Critical constellations in the agent network of nanotechnology. Technology in Society, 29(4), 388–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Woodhouse, E., & Sarewitz, D. (2007). Science policies for reducing societal inequities. Science and Public Policy, 34(2), 139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Sustainability and The Built EnvironmentArizona State UniversityPhoenix Metropolitan AreaUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyRochester Institute of TechnologyHenriettaUSA
  3. 3.School of SustainabilityArizona State UniversityPhoenix Metropolitan AreaUSA

Personalised recommendations